I know you weren't. That was merely an "amen" for Bob. Most decent ADCs can give good results, if they are used correctly. That's why I don't like those "restorations". They "put lipstick on the pig" and the result is unacceptable for me and the pig. There was a great article about Pro-tools a while back. It explained how all that manipulation in the digital domain gives such a bad sounding product because every manipulation of the original signal looses bit depth (or something like that---I'm an idiot about digital). Phillip Tom Fine wrote: > I'm not arguing for bad digital sound -- I don't know who would. > > I am saying that a top-line converter like the Benchmark is a real > stretch for some funding-limited organizations and I'd much rather see > limited budgets spent on excellent quality -- and the maintenance > thereof -- ANALOG gear so you don't need a "by the light of the virgin > moon" kind of digital chain but rather the very good and relatively > inexpensive stuff that is out there if not plentiful. There are > probably some who have more faith in digital processing than I do -- I > say make it sound good before it goes into the box. So under this > philosophy, one wouldn't even try extreme digital processing since you > can't put lipstick on a pig and most people I know find digital > artifacts super-annoying compared to minor analog imperfections. > > I still think the CardDeluxe is the best DAC device for under $1000 > but some are very insistent on keeping all the audio circuitry outside > of a PC/Mac box, for understandable reasons. There are a variety of > external devices of excellent quality out there for well sound of the > Benchmark's prices, although if your budget is rich and your tastes > are toward the excellent only, that equipment has a sterling > reputation. I can't recommend a specific external box because I don't > have any. I will note that some of these devices seem to devote a lot > of the development and marketing budget to mic preamps and/or built-in > analog stuff like tube "warmers" or compressors of various flavors > which may or may not be desired in a transfer chain. > > Even more important that what digi-toy you happen to have is your > practices -- are you presenting undistorted, in-azimuth audio to the > analog-to-digital converter? Is polarity and phase constant in your > chain? Did you chase down and eliminate grounding and hum issues? For > that matter, have you scientifically measured your equipment and do > you have the equipment to measure it and keep it running to spec? If > you're doing disks, have you cleaned them properly and played them > with the proper stylus? Is your tape machine aligned to the proper > standard? Do you keep the tape heads cleaned and degaussed (sp?)? Are > you converting at 96/24 and leaving plenty of headroom so your > processing won't present digital clipping? Do you have a proper > storage and backup system? To my thinking, all of this is much more > important than what brand of DAC you use as long as you find something > in your budget that can produce digital copies that come out sounding > like what was fed into the digital system, minus whatever digital > processing you choose to do (and I would choose to be as conservative > as possible with that). > > Just to be clear one more time, I'm not advocating a bad-sounding > anything -- EVER! > > -- Tom Fine > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "phillip holmes" > <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 8:27 PM > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Shopping for AD/DA > > >> Amen. Bad analog sound, plus bad digital sound, equals junk. Many >> "restorations" of old 78s sound worse to me because I can still hear >> the limitations of the 78, and then, they add a layer of mediocre >> digital processing. Obviously, there are guys who do good >> "restorations". I say "restorations" because you can't restore >> what's not there. You can only take away ticks and pops, and in the >> process, some of the music you'd like to keep. That's why I'm a >> record collector. >> Phillip >> >> Bob Olhsson wrote: >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >From Tom Fine: "...I would argue that these would be great overkill >>> for such >>> things as cassette field recordings, almost any spoken word, private >>> recordings, old non-hifi media, etc." >>> >>> If the recordings are worth cleaning up, I'd argue they are worth >>> the best >>> converters one can afford. Digital artifacts are not covered up by >>> analog >>> recording artifacts. It comes down to the actual value of the >>> recordings vs. >>> the cost. High quality converters create audio that can accept a lot >>> more >>> signal processing before turning crunchy. >>> >>> Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN >>> Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control >>> Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined! >>> 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com >>> >>> >> >